Why are women so triggered by the friendzone?

Okay so lets say a guy and a girl are friends. They get to be really close friends. The guy develops feelings for the girl and would like to date her but the girl is only interested in him as a friend. The guy says "I've been friendzoned." Suddenly the guy is being attacked by a horde of angry women. They say the friendzone doesn't exist. They accuse him of being sexist and misogynistic. They say he feels entitled to sex because he's a "nice guy." They ask him where his fedora is. They point out over and over and over how a woman is not obligated to return his feelings. The guy never said or even hinted at any of these things but the women are 100% convinced that they all apply to him and that he deserves every bit of abuse they throw at him.

The people who get upset with the word tend to see it as implying that being a love interest is the default state and by being friendzoned you've been cast aside. I expect to them there is no friendzone but rather a romancezone. To that I'd agree wholeheartedly; I don't consciously consider guys I talk to friendzoned, I simply never see them in a romantic light because I'm straight. Basically if you're unattractive to somebody they're not going to consider you dating material.

I don't understand why some people get so angry with the usage of the word though. Like it's one thing to interpret it by that definition and debate it, but a whole other matter to get enraged by the usage. Think of the perspective of the people who use the word; they considered the person they're pursuing to be dateable, so for that to not be recipricated in their world is being friendzoned.

I'll grant that some men definitely use the word in a very bitter connotation and are quite vocal about it. That sort of thing is definitely a good way to give a word a bad reputation.

Joined: 13 May 2011Age: 48Gender: MalePosts: 12,943Location: The end of the northwest passage

11 Sep 2017, 11:47 am

The problem is not the idea itself, but the way some people believe that you can manipulate people to avoid ending up there. "Act like a macho dickhead, and you won't end up in the friendzone," has been repeated endlessly. Rather than accepting that people get attracted to each other for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people who rely on that terminology treat sexual relations as a game, and objectify the women as targets.

Objectify means view as an object, and represents an unacceptable way to treat people. It does not mean the same a sexualize, which means to view a person as a potential sexual partner, or even to feel sexual arousal when thinking about them. That's perfectly normal and cool, provided you can keep quiet about it and not annoy people who don't want to hear about it.

So yeah, it's probably going to trigger people. You should avoid using that term to avoid getting lumped in with serious misogynists. As an analogy, no one is going to assume your swastika tattoo indicates your love for Buddhism. Too bad. Don't even bother trying to defend PUAs as not misogynist.

The problem is not the idea itself, but the way some people believe that you can manipulate people to avoid ending up there. "Act like a macho dickhead, and you won't end up in the friendzone," has been repeated endlessly. Rather than accepting that people get attracted to each other for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people who rely on that terminology treat sexual relations as a game, and objectify the women as targets.

Objectify means view as an object, and represents an unacceptable way to treat people. It does not mean the same a sexualize, which means to view a person as a potential sexual partner, or even to feel sexual arousal when thinking about them. That's perfectly normal and cool, provided you can keep quiet about it and not annoy people who don't want to hear about it.

So yeah, it's probably going to trigger people. You should avoid using that term to avoid getting lumped in with serious misogynists. As an analogy, no one is going to assume your swastika tattoo indicates your love for Buddhism. Too bad. Don't even bother trying to defend PUAs as not misogynist.

OK- so systematising brains are operating IFR when neurotypicals are running VFR... so when you're having to preprocess a lot of the relating as realtime is too CPU-intensive..

What is so wrong about applying RPG mechanics to the woolly world of dating anyway?

The problem is not the idea itself, but the way some people believe that you can manipulate people to avoid ending up there. "Act like a macho dickhead, and you won't end up in the friendzone," has been repeated endlessly. Rather than accepting that people get attracted to each other for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people who rely on that terminology treat sexual relations as a game, and objectify the women as targets.

Objectify means view as an object, and represents an unacceptable way to treat people. It does not mean the same a sexualize, which means to view a person as a potential sexual partner, or even to feel sexual arousal when thinking about them. That's perfectly normal and cool, provided you can keep quiet about it and not annoy people who don't want to hear about it.

So yeah, it's probably going to trigger people. You should avoid using that term to avoid getting lumped in with serious misogynists. As an analogy, no one is going to assume your swastika tattoo indicates your love for Buddhism. Too bad. Don't even bother trying to defend PUAs as not misogynist.

See you just bought into the stereotype which has already been debunked more than once on this thread. That's the problem I have with this. People like you take a very small minority olf people and apply that definition to everyone who has ever used the word. Which is sexist. And stupid.

Joined: 13 May 2011Age: 48Gender: MalePosts: 12,943Location: The end of the northwest passage

11 Sep 2017, 12:20 pm

alcockell wrote:

jrjones9933 wrote:

The problem is not the idea itself, but the way some people believe that you can manipulate people to avoid ending up there. "Act like a macho dickhead, and you won't end up in the friendzone," has been repeated endlessly. Rather than accepting that people get attracted to each other for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people who rely on that terminology treat sexual relations as a game, and objectify the women as targets.

Objectify means view as an object, and represents an unacceptable way to treat people. It does not mean the same a sexualize, which means to view a person as a potential sexual partner, or even to feel sexual arousal when thinking about them. That's perfectly normal and cool, provided you can keep quiet about it and not annoy people who don't want to hear about it.

So yeah, it's probably going to trigger people. You should avoid using that term to avoid getting lumped in with serious misogynists. As an analogy, no one is going to assume your swastika tattoo indicates your love for Buddhism. Too bad. Don't even bother trying to defend PUAs as not misogynist.

OK- so systematising brains are operating IFR when neurotypicals are running VFR... so when you're having to preprocess a lot of the relating as realtime is too CPU-intensive..

What is so wrong about applying RPG mechanics to the woolly world of dating anyway?

Easy. It involves objectifying people, if you rely on it too heavily. People do have preprogrammed reactions, and if one can learn them, one can use them to persuade people to open up to possibilities. That differs from using a mechanistic set of actions to manipulate people. Autistic people will benefit from trying to the best of their abilities to actually perceive people, even though we find it difficult at times.

Joined: 13 May 2011Age: 48Gender: MalePosts: 12,943Location: The end of the northwest passage

11 Sep 2017, 12:21 pm

FunkyPunky wrote:

jrjones9933 wrote:

The problem is not the idea itself, but the way some people believe that you can manipulate people to avoid ending up there. "Act like a macho dickhead, and you won't end up in the friendzone," has been repeated endlessly. Rather than accepting that people get attracted to each other for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people who rely on that terminology treat sexual relations as a game, and objectify the women as targets.

Objectify means view as an object, and represents an unacceptable way to treat people. It does not mean the same a sexualize, which means to view a person as a potential sexual partner, or even to feel sexual arousal when thinking about them. That's perfectly normal and cool, provided you can keep quiet about it and not annoy people who don't want to hear about it.

So yeah, it's probably going to trigger people. You should avoid using that term to avoid getting lumped in with serious misogynists. As an analogy, no one is going to assume your swastika tattoo indicates your love for Buddhism. Too bad. Don't even bother trying to defend PUAs as not misogynist.

See you just bought into the stereotype which has already been debunked more than once on this thread. That's the problem I have with this. People like you take a very small minority olf people and apply that definition to everyone who has ever used the word. Which is sexist. And stupid.

You can assert that it is debunked, but I still see it as bunko. It's ironic the way you do exactly what you accuse me of doing in your very accusation.

Okay so lets say a guy and a girl are friends. They get to be really close friends. The guy develops feelings for the girl and would like to date her but the girl is only interested in him as a friend. The guy says "I've been friendzoned." Suddenly the guy is being attacked by a horde of angry women. They say the friendzone doesn't exist. They accuse him of being sexist and misogynistic. They say he feels entitled to sex because he's a "nice guy." They ask him where his fedora is. They point out over and over and over how a woman is not obligated to return his feelings. The guy never said or even hinted at any of these things but the women are 100% convinced that they all apply to him and that he deserves every bit of abuse they throw at him.

Why is this such a common thing?

+100

A few more questions:-Why do they claim that the "friendzone is NOT real" and then complain about it like it's a real thing?-Why do they get so mad when a guy is nice to them, then get mad when he stops? I mean they clearly state they like assholes!

Joined: 13 May 2011Age: 48Gender: MalePosts: 12,943Location: The end of the northwest passage

11 Sep 2017, 2:49 pm

Aaendi wrote:

FunkyPunky wrote:

Okay so lets say a guy and a girl are friends. They get to be really close friends. The guy develops feelings for the girl and would like to date her but the girl is only interested in him as a friend. The guy says "I've been friendzoned." Suddenly the guy is being attacked by a horde of angry women. They say the friendzone doesn't exist. They accuse him of being sexist and misogynistic. They say he feels entitled to sex because he's a "nice guy." They ask him where his fedora is. They point out over and over and over how a woman is not obligated to return his feelings. The guy never said or even hinted at any of these things but the women are 100% convinced that they all apply to him and that he deserves every bit of abuse they throw at him.

Why is this such a common thing?

+100

A few more questions:-Why do they claim that the "friendzone is NOT real" and then complain about it like it's a real thing?-Why do they get so mad when a guy is nice to them, then get mad when he stops? I mean they clearly state they like assholes!

Can someone tell me where to find these women? It irritates me that they evidently prefer to spend their time lying in wait for guys to say the wrong thing, over spending it with me.

Maybe they are actually The Furies, in modern guise? That's how they miraculously appear out of nowhere, EVERY TIME a guy says the WRONG THING.